[aerohit]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

We see a lot of cars with bull bars both in the front and/or the back.
The owners are at best ill informed. They think these will protect the vehicle from accident damage.

What they do not realise is:

1. In case of a collision you will transmit the impact to the chassis and the crumple zones will not come into play. So the vehicle may suffer marginally less damage, the occupants will suffer more.

2. If you hit a pedestrian he will NOT be thrown on to the bonnet and will suffer more injury. He may even be crushed.

3. You compromise the streamlining to a degree.

I think as responsible motorists we need to educate people about this.

Absolutely, I think there should be a PIL for banning bull bars just like they banned window tints. Infact, bull bars are more dangerous than tints. Also, by installing bull bars you have technically changed the defined length of the vehicle making it illegal!

Any information on how team-bhp can collectively raise a PIL will be useful.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

We see a lot of cars with bull bars both in the front and/or the back.
The owners are at best ill informed. They think these will protect the vehicle from accident damage.

What they do not realise is:

1. In case of a collision you will transmit the impact to the chassis and the crumple zones will not come into play. So the vehicle may suffer marginally less damage, the occupants will suffer more.

2. If you hit a pedestrian he will NOT be thrown on to the bonnet and will suffer more injury. He may even be crushed.

3. You compromise the streamlining to a degree.

I think as responsible motorists we need to educate people about this.

I agree. May be a example will help people understand. Scene. I am driving my Safari Dicor, and there is a Innova with a rear bull bar ahead of me, in bumper to bumper traffic. For some reason, the Innova harsh brakes and I am unable to stop in time, result, a 5kmph hit to the Innova's right rear end, with my left front end. When we both got out to survey the damage. My damage: LHS fog lamp popped out of place, the clip had broken, had to buy a new clip to set it right. Innova's damage: Bull bar bent inwards into his rear bumper, result rear bumper fully deformed, entire bumper scratched and paint finish in disrepair.

[nmenon]

Adding my 2 paise to this one. My Alto got rear ended by a Bolero with Bull Bars. I had to claim insurance because the inner metal spar behind the bumper was bent beyond repair. Considering I was stationary and he wasn't doing much more than 20 kmph, the damage done was quite high.

My only question in general is that we (I mean us BHPians who are generally sensible and good drivers) make a very small minority on our roads and it is we who suffer due to these ignorant morons. The worst part is we can't do anything about it because as someone very famous once said "an eye for an eye makes for 2 blind men". Yet we realistically don't want to suffer in silence.

I'm just putting this out, anyone got any ideas to avoid becoming a victim of these morons, without doing any of above mentioned uncharitable activities?

[Zappo]

I just stumbled on to this thread!

So there are two set of issues here. One is the question raised by the OP on whether the bull bars are legal in India. Second is the discussion around why bullbars are dangerous. I almost fully subscribe to the second point. Bullbars are indeed dangerous. However, for the bars in the rear of the car I have my own personal take. Most of the SUVs extend the passenger cabin till the very end. Chances are good that in case a rogue vehicle comes in and rear ends your vehicle at high speeds he will go deep inside the passenger cabin. I would rather, there is a strong bar at the back to transfer some of the energy in bending that bar + sending it into the chassis before it also starts crushing in the rearwards portion of a passenger cabin. Please note again, that my opinion is limited only to the rear bars for the SUVs and MUVs that in an attempt to be 7/8 seaters use the last inch of the vehicles length to accommodate more seats.

Now coming back to the OP's question, are these legal? Well, I don't know of any specific law really that deals with bullbars. For that matter it is not possible to have such separate rulings unless there is a precedent for certain bad happenings that have been specifically collated and definitively proven to be the results of bullbars. Somewhat like the banning of sunfilms (something that I still don't fully agree with anyways). However, there are enough laws in this country that are so defined that if needed the law enforcement agencies can loop you in. One such law deals with a MV regulation that says no structural modifications to the vehicle is allowed post approval and thus putting a bar increases the length of the vehicle. Another related law, although related to the loading of the vehicles, says that you can't have anything in/on your vehicle that projects out of the vehicle's length by a certain length.

I hope you get the drift.

[aerohit]

Originally Posted by Zappo

Bullbars are indeed dangerous. However, for the bars in the rear of the car I have my own personal take. Most of the SUVs extend the passenger cabin till the very end. Chances are good that in case a rogue vehicle comes in and rear ends your vehicle at high speeds he will go deep inside the passenger cabin. I would rather, there is a strong bar at the back to transfer some of the energy in bending that bar + sending it into the chassis before it also starts crushing in the rearwards portion of a passenger cabin. Please note again, that my opinion is limited only to the rear bars for the SUVs and MUVs that in an attempt to be 7/8 seaters use the last inch of the vehicles length to accommodate more seats.
a bar increases the length of the vehicle.

This happen sometime in December 2015, true story, I witnessed on Gurgaon highway.

A Verna rear ended a Fortuner in a bumper to bumper traffic jam, all at reasonably slow speed. The Verna driver got out and tried to beat up the Fortuner driver, don't know what happened after that as I had to move forward forward the jam.

For a moment I was surprised, how can the vehicle in front be at fault, Verna should have braked on time! But his logic was that his car got damaged because of rear extended bar on Fortuner. Had there been no bar he would have braked normally with sufficient distance that he is mentally accustomed to, like he always does!

I don't agree with his behavior but totally agree with his logic. You are passing the buck to someone else which is typical Indian mentality - "I don't care what happens to you but my vehicle shouldn't get damaged!"

The last thing you don't want is EVERYONE installing the bars front/rear.

[vinya_jag]

I have seen forklifts run happily. I wonder what the rules are

[Zappo]

Originally Posted by aerohit

You are passing the buck to someone else which is typical Indian mentality - "I don't care what happens to you but my vehicle shouldn't get damaged!"

The last thing you don't want is EVERYONE installing the bars front/rear.

I don't know if you thought through what you posted or just trying to be a contrarian here. However the logic here is simple. If you cant stop before 2 inches behind my rear (that is the max protrusion for a rear bar) then I have no faith in your driving or braking abilities. And in all such cases I have all the rights in the world to think of protecting my property and the life of my kins rather worrying about "your verna". Thank you!

[aerohit]

Globally, basically the law says this -

Bull bars are NOT banned. Frontal Protection Systems (FPS) ARE banned. In India they are all Protection Systems (PS) meant from preventing scratches on their "investments".

In India, there is no defined standard for bull bars- front or rear. Some extend 2 inch, others extend 5 inch. Some are made of steel (bad) others are made of aluminum (good).

In rural Australia, [check hyperlink] - there was some support for bull bars because they protect against stray deers/kangaroos from penetrating the cabin. I think they are legal in rural areas but banned in cities.

However, in India, there are more humans than animals, so you are more likely to hit a human. If that human dies due to presence of bull bar - your car is likely to be set on fire. You decide.

Here is a sample of Australian bull bar law-

The Australian Design Rule 42.9.1 states:

"No vehicle shall be equipped with any object or fitting, not technically essential which protrudes from any part of the vehicle so that it is likely to increase the risk of bodily injury to any person."

Exemption:

• Vehicles fitted with knifelike fishing-rod holders which would penetrate an adult pedestrian at heart-height or a child at face-height (and other sharp and dangerous protrusions such as winches and spotlights)
• Police vehicles from the Accident Investigation Unit
• Utilities with bullbars built like battering rams
• Taxis which are not permitted outside the metropolitan area
• Police vehicles which also never travel outside the suburbs
• 4WD's carrying outboard motors attached to their bullbars with rope

In EU -

Frontal Protection System is the name given to any seperate structure or structures fixed to the front of a vehicle above or below the original bumper intended to protect the outer surface of the vehicle from damage in the event of a collision.

Since the introduction of the EC directive (2005/66/EC), it has been illegal in any EU member state to sell or distribute a Frontal Protection System or FPS, without first obtaining a type approval for the vehicle for which it is intended to fit. An example of the certificate issued for a type approved FPS can be seen Here. In any EU country, if the FPS you wish to purchase or fit to your vehicle has an EU certificate and the part has the "e" number stamped or indelibly printed on it, it is perfectly legal. If it does not, then it is illegal to be sold.

Originally Posted by Zappo

I don't know if you thought through what you posted or just trying to be a contrarian here. However the logic here is simple. If you cant stop before 2 inches behind my rear (that is the max protrusion for a rear bar) then I have no faith in your driving or braking abilities. And in all such cases I have all the rights in the world to think of protecting my property and the life of my kins rather worrying about "your verna". Thank you!

For a fact, people in India do stop a little too close due to higher traffic density (which is also wrong, yet remains a fact) - Probably thats why they call it 'bumper to bumper' traffic. The extended bar at the back makes the situation worse - yes it does!

I do agree to some extent that rear bars are less dangerous than the front - not denying that.

[tanwaramit]

Originally Posted by aerohit

Absolutely, I think there should be a PIL for banning bull bars just like they banned window tints. Infact, bull bars are more dangerous than tints. Also, by installing bull bars you have technically changed the defined length of the vehicle making it illegal!

Any information on how team-bhp can collectively raise a PIL will be useful.

someone has listened to you and has filed a PIL in the High court for Bull Guards legality.

http://www.business-standard.com/art...2700501_1.html
___
PIL in HC against crash guards on vehicles
Metal bumpers, also known as crash guards, installed at the front and back of vehicles are a threat to lives of pedestrians as well as passengers and should be banned, a PIL has claimed in the Delhi High Court which has sought the Centre's response.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar issued notice to the Ministry of Road Transport and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), asking them to make clear their stand on the issue.

The petition, which is listed for hearing on November 22, claims that while these bumpers, often also referred to as 'bull bars', may look stylish and protect the vehicle in low speed impacts, in high speed accidents they would defeat the in-built safety features of the car resulting in serious and fatal injuries to the passengers.

Petitioners Aarshi Kapoor and Sidharth Bagla have contended that the crash guards would also knock down pedestrians in low and high speed impacts, causing serious injuries apart from putting their lives at risk.

The petition, filed through advocate Anil Aggarwal, contends that the plastic bumpers installed by vehicle manufacturers would not knock down pedestrians in low speed impacts and in high speed accidents with another vehicle or object, they act as 'crumple zones' which absorb impact of the collision.

"The crash guards may look stylish and protect the front bumper, engine, radiator, lights, ac compressor during low speed impacts, but would result in fatal injuries to pedestrians at low speeds and would take lives of passengers in high speed impacts.

"Use of 'crash guards' interferes with and defeats all safety features of a vehicle. They also cause inadvertent and premature deployment of airbags," it said.

The petitioners have sought a direction to the ministry to prohibit use of crash guards as well as running of vehicles which have installed such metal bumpers.

It has also sought a direction to IRDA to not insure motor vehicles installed with crash guards or any other equipment that impairs the in-built safety features of a vehicle or affects its "crashworthiness" in any manner.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Good.

But it reeks of inaccuracy, misinformation, and either ignorance of the PIL filer or (hopefully more likely) the reporter. I hope that complete and technically correct information will be given to the court.

Sometimes, courts have a great deal of common sense and act on it anyway. Fingers crossed: looking forward to bull bars being banned.

[sivathetechwiz]

These are usual basic accessories for any commercial SUV - I haven't seen many Mahindra Xylos or Taveras plying office staff without these. Yes, these present the owners an unfair advantage of protecting against expensive bumper / front grille damage while putting pedastrians and other vehicles in risk.

Eg. If one such SUV with bull-bars rearends onto my car, mine would suffer much damage than it would from an unmodified vehicle and in case of high speeds, can seriously affect passenger safety.

Hope a law gets passed banning them and the traffic cops hunt them down (and get to remove them on the spot).

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by sivathetechwiz

Hope a law gets passed banning them and the traffic cops hunt them down (and get to remove them on the spot).

With a chainsaw*.

Seriously. Let these bull-bar drivers have a lesson they will never forget!

Bull bars is like running through a crowd holding an open knife pointing ahead. Utter disdain for the safety of others.




*OK, OK, an angle grinder would be more effective and only slightly less dramatic.